so this prank lasted at least 3 years?

10/5/2006 7:20:30 PM

Democrats don't claim to have the moral high ground as much as Republicans do, which makes this extra bitter sweet. No politician is innocent, but M. Foley spoke out against pedophiles, and he is one, AND he was being protected by the Republican majority for several months, maybe more. This protection helps to justify the labeling of a whole party because of the heinous actions of one person. It presents a corrupt image of the Republican party, but hopefully, no one really believes the whole party is corrupt.

[Edited on October 5, 2006 at 7:57 PM. Reason : -]

10/5/2006 7:40:32 PM

Not a single news venue is citing Drudge

Plus, does the Drudge article, even taken as fact, absolve Foley of being a pedo? All it says was that they baited him. Entrapment doesn't mean you aren't guilty.

Plus, it says nothing of the coverup

10/5/2006 7:41:34 PM

Quote :

"i love how whenever you point out that democrats are guilty of the exact same thing that they are throwing a fit over, all they have to do is reply BUT CLINTON DID IT! in lieu of actually discussing the differences "

No one is labeling the whole party because of this one guy, but since this guy is well known because of politics, and as a representative of his party, it's going to come up. It's politics.

It's irrelevant who in the past did something, because it's too late to do something about that. THis issue is happening NOW in the present, and we have to decide how to proceed. People just bring up past republicans and Clinton because they are trying to confuse the issue, not shed any light on what caused the current situation, or how it should be handled. I know WolfPack2k is a little bit dim, but you really don't think he knows the difference?

10/5/2006 7:49:03 PM

Quote :

"Page family praises 'hero' son The family of the congressional page at the center of the Mark Foley e-sex scandal issued a statement praising their son as a hero. It says he told them about overly friendly e-mails from Foley at the time, but that they did not know about the more sexually charged instant messages. Foley resigned last week when the online conversations became public."

-CNN

Yeah, it was definitely a prank

Oh and by the way, Kerry has a mistress that fled to Africa

10/5/2006 8:06:06 PM

Three more pages pranked Foley lawl!!!
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/10/three_more_form.html

10/5/2006 8:11:21 PM

Quote :

"Plus, does the Drudge article, even taken as fact, absolve Foley of being a pedo?"

He's not a pedophile either way. We're talking about a sixteen-year-old guy here, not an actual child. Sixteen is the age of consent in many places.

Back on topic, I doubt the IMs are fake, though I guess they could be.

10/5/2006 8:13:02 PM

He is a pedophile.

52 year olds, gay or straight, don't normally pursue 16 year olds.

10/5/2006 8:22:49 PM

and if they did it was during the middle ages

10/5/2006 8:31:50 PM

Some of you might be thinking back to your self image as a 16 year-old, rather than the reality of you as a 16 year-old.

I work with 16 year-olds all day. The dude's a pedo.

Sure, it's not quite the same thing as 8 year olds, but it's the same basic concept.

10/5/2006 8:34:32 PM

Quote :

"Sure, it's not quite the same thing as 8 year olds, but it's the same basic concept."

Not really, no. Eight-year-olds aren't even sexually mature.

A sixteen, a person should be responsible for his or her body. Having sex with a much older person is almost always a bad idea, but the sixteen-year-old is far from a helpless victim.

10/5/2006 8:42:18 PM

Helpless, no.

victim, yes.

They're physically mature, but far from mentally and emotionally mature.

10/5/2006 8:48:52 PM

I would argue that an adult fucking an eight year old and fucking a sixteen year old are two fundamentally different things, and that the former is much worse than the latter, but that both are wrong.

10/5/2006 8:51:53 PM

eh, I guess so.

so long as we're all clear on how effed up both activities are.

10/5/2006 8:52:43 PM

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX THU FEB 12, 2004 20:01:49 ET XXXXX

OUT OF AFRICA: KERRY PREPARES RESPONSE TO MEDIA PROBE OF RELATIONSHIP

**Exclusive**

Democratic presidential frontrunner John Kerry is planning a response to a DRUDGE REPORT exclusive which first revealed the frantic behind-the-scenes drama surrounding a woman who recently fled the country, reportedly at the prodding of Kerry!

The nature and details of a claimed two-year relationship, beginning in the Spring of 2001, between a young woman and Kerry is at the center of serious investigations at several media outlets.

After being approached by a top news producer, the woman fled to Africa, where she remains, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal.

Unlike the Monica Lewinsky drama, which first played out publicly in this space, with audio tapes, cigar and a dress, the Kerry situation has posed a challenge to reporters investigating the claims.

"There is no lawsuit testimony this time [like Clinton with Paula Jones]," a top source said Thursday night. "It is hard to prove."

A close friend of the woman first approached a reporter late last year claiming fantastic stories -- stories that now threaten to turn the race for the presidency on its head.

Kerry is scheduled to appear on IMUS IN THE MORNING on Friday. Later he is scheduled to join General Wesley Clark, who, in an off-the-record conversation with a dozen reporters earlier this week, plainly stated: "Kerry will implode over an intern issue."

Reporters who witnessed Clark making the stunning comments marvel at the General's reluctance to later confirm they were spoken -- only to later endorse Kerry for the nomination!

Developing...

10/5/2006 9:13:01 PM

Quote :

"I know WolfPack2k is a little bit dim, but you really don't think he knows the difference? "

Hey dipshit, since we're talking about intelligence and all, why don't you get the fucking user names right. Talk about being fucking dim...

And I love the blanket liberal reponse "but clinton did it!!11!!"...he fucking pardoned a democrat pedophile who was CONVICTED of fucking his 16 year old assistant. Foley had, at worst, online sex, which doesn't excuse Foley but damn people, at least try to be consistent.

[Edited on October 5, 2006 at 9:22 PM. Reason : ]

10/5/2006 9:17:42 PM

for all practical purposes you're pretty much the same user

10/5/2006 9:24:24 PM

I guess that you and every other worthless liberal fuck on this site are the same user.

If you and your fellow circle jerkers can't even get something as simple as a user name correct how in the hell can anybody take you seriously on anything that requires an IQ above room temperature?

[Edited on October 5, 2006 at 9:28 PM. Reason : ]

10/5/2006 9:25:27 PM

serious business

10/5/2006 9:30:07 PM

Which party is the pedophile party again? Remind me, which member of what party actually had sex with a minor? Who pardoned said offender? And yet you get your pretty little pink panties in a wad over some online sex and think that you can somehow claim the high ground on said issue?

10/5/2006 9:33:06 PM

Quote :

"victim, yes."

Generally, no more so than anyone who decides to do something stupid is a victim. It depends on the exact situation, of course.

Quote :

"They're physically mature, but far from mentally and emotionally mature."

That varies a great deal. Many sixteen-year-olds are more mature than some eighteen-year-olds.

10/5/2006 9:35:13 PM

Quote :

"Which party is the pedophile party again?"

Republicans, duh

10/5/2006 9:37:45 PM

Quote :

"52 year olds, gay or straight, don't normally pursue 16 year olds."

Somebody has never been to Miami.

10/5/2006 9:39:23 PM

Quote :

"Hey dipshit, since we're talking about intelligence and all, why don't you get the fucking user names right. Talk about being fucking dim... "

Oh, sorry. I meant Wlfpk4Life, everyone.

I measure my room temperature in Kelvin, btw.

[Edited on October 5, 2006 at 11:05 PM. Reason : ]

10/5/2006 11:03:41 PM

So you think John Mark Carr went to Thailand for the food and culture?

10/5/2006 11:27:30 PM

Quote :

"A sixteen, a person should be responsible for his or her body. Having sex with a much older person is almost always a bad idea, but the sixteen-year-old is far from a helpless victim."

Ahaha, all this victim blaiming and rationalizing makes me love republicans.

10/5/2006 11:55:46 PM

having sex with an older person

or

having sex with a younger person

of course the person whos not a politician is to blame.

10/6/2006 12:06:42 AM

^were you trying to get a rise out of me on page 1??

all i said was....if its true that ABC has used to bogus IM's...then there will be hell to pay...

but you...being the braindead partisan hack that you are....tried to turn it into something else...so pathetic

10/6/2006 12:16:22 AM

if it's true that the IMs were bogus in that they were not written by Foley, then yes, hell to pay.

if it's true that they were bogus in that 1) they were not actually written by a 16 year old boy, or 2) the boy in question was joking or doing it to trap Foley, and 3) Foley still thought he was talking to a 16 year old boy, then nothing changes. If he was actually talking to a boy or not is immaterial - if he was under the impression that he was talking to a boy is what's important. People are arrested for exactly that all the time (i.e. thinking they are talking to boys/girls, who are actually pranksters or sting operators).

10/6/2006 12:25:04 AM

^yeah...thats true...

10/6/2006 12:32:27 AM

Quote :

"ya know...if this proves to be true...and ABC used these false IM's to slander Foley and affect the elections....it will go down worse than Rathergate...i mean...just thinking out loud...i have ZERO proof that this is true...im just saying...it would be really bad for ABC if this turns out to be true"

no, because prank or not what they were reporting was very real

10/6/2006 12:49:57 AM

Quote :

"TreeTwista10 Chuck Amato 39049 Posts user info edit post Quote : "by default proves they are real" glad to know you're lack of understanding about logic is not just limited to science"

Did you enjoy leaving off the "pretty much" part of my comment so you could launch a baseless attack at me? Am I a hippy liberal for this? Why did you leave off all your other slanders, and tripe bullshit that you manage to fuck threads up with...all the while claiming everyone but you is the idiot?

Should I have put "nearly" or "almost" or "all but" for you to make it a little bit simpler? Would you have still baselessly attacked me? Would you have still attempted to derail the argument rather than discussing the very relevant concept that no denial, a resignation, a checking into a rehab, parties members claiming awareness of emails, probably means the IMs are legit?

Can you discuss anything here without starting a bullshit fight?

10/6/2006 1:08:43 AM

Quote :

"Ahaha, all this victim blaiming and rationalizing makes me love republicans."

Are you calling me a Republican?

10/6/2006 2:12:52 AM

if not, you're (at the very least) defensive

10/6/2006 2:16:01 AM

people still take drudge as a credible news source?

10/6/2006 9:44:23 AM

Quote :

"Which party is the pedophile party again? Remind me, which member of what party actually had sex with a minor? Who pardoned said offender? And yet you get your pretty little pink panties in a wad over some online sex and think that you can somehow claim the high ground on said issue?"

This is 2006, welcome. I doubt that the democrat you mentioned spoke out against pedophilia before he was caught for it unceremoniously. I also doubt that the Clinton administration kept it quiet for nearly as long, putting at risk countless underage political aids. Finally, the democrats don't claim to have the moral high ground half as much as Republicans do, making this whole Republican fiasco, very very bitter sweet.

[Edited on October 6, 2006 at 12:16 PM. Reason : -]

10/6/2006 12:10:06 PM

Quote :

"if not, you're (at the very least) defensive"

My defense of "pedophiles" is strictly nonpartisan.

10/6/2006 1:13:49 PM

^rofl

10/6/2006 1:36:32 PM

member of NAMBLA?

10/6/2006 2:23:53 PM

Quote :

"So don't act like this shit only happens in Republican ranks. Labeling a whole party because of the henious actions of one person reaks of ignorance."

Ahahahhaha

When a Republican fucks up by doing something he preaches against, it doesn't make him a hypocrite. It means he's blinded by Sin and Satan.

When a Democrat fucks up in the eyes of Conservatives it warrants a witch hunt and impeachment proceedings.

TWO WRONGS MAKE A RIGHT IF YOURE A REPUBLICAN BECAUSE THEY CANCEL EACHOTHER OUT!

10/8/2006 6:39:41 PM

Ahahah, Drudge didn't have one mention of the entire Foley thing all day long.

I guess this one definitely developed... into something harmful to Republicans

10/12/2006 7:46:55 PM

Okay, just wanted to say that wolfpackforlife is ridiculously biased. To the point where he really shouldn't ever be taken seriously. I plan to respond to his posts when I'm sober and remember his posts so I can repeatedly throw them in his face whenever he posts.

10/13/2006 12:56:46 AM

Still waiting for Ashton Kutcher to jump out of the bushes...

10/13/2006 1:07:09 AM

^^ Well you are ridiculously fat, and I am going to bring it up everytime I respond to your posts, drunk or sober.

Just playin', pumpkin.

10/13/2006 11:01:52 AM

i love how he never acknowledges anything i have to say after i PWNT him

10/13/2006 6:03:15 PM

Usually I don't waste my time with responses to fags and I have a life outside of there here messageboards, but...

Where have I defended Foley at all? If you actually read what I said, I think Foley is scum but I was also addressing those in this thread who thinks that this is somehow a uniquely Republican problem.

10/13/2006 6:35:00 PM

^But here's where you slip up, fool...

Quote :

"Democrats have also had their own pedophile problem in the past as well, and Clinton even pardoned this guy after his had been convicted of having sex with a 16 year old staffer. But he's a democrat so it's ok. http://www.cnn.com/US/9611/07/reynolds.indict/ So don't act like this shit only happens in Republican ranks. Labeling a whole party because of the henious actions of one person reaks of ignorance. By the way, name one conservative that has absolved Foley for his actions."

You wants us to believe this problem isn't unique to the Republican party, but that pardoning/absolving this "scum" is a problem that's unique to the Democrats.

See how fucking warped you are?

10/15/2006 5:17:12 PM

I'm warped because Clinton pardoned a pedophile?

10/15/2006 5:24:29 PM

^I repeat:

Quote :

"You wants us to believe this problem isn't unique to the Republican party, but that pardoning/absolving this "scum" is a problem that's unique to the Democrats."

10/15/2006 5:37:12 PM

Even though you had to be a bitch in the way you pointed it out, it's actually it's pretty sad how the leadership in the GOP dragged their feet over this which is almost as pathetic as Clinton's pardon.

[Edited on October 16, 2006 at 12:26 AM. Reason : ]

10/16/2006 12:25:38 AM